Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Monday January 04, 2010 @02:11PM
from the pricepoint-better-be-right dept.

Arvisp writes "According to a blog post by former Google China president Kai-Fu Lee, Apple plans to produce nearly 10 million tablets in the still-unannounced product's first year. If Lee's blog post is to be believed, Apple plans to sell nearly twice as many tablets as it did iPhones in the product's first year."

I'm thinking Jobs asked "How much per unit if we're making 10 million of them?" Then after the manufacturer crunches the numbers and comes back with the figures, Jobs will offer to pay that per-unit cost but in increments of 10,000 units.

Change 10,000 to 100,000 and I wouldn't be shocked. He then states, "you want to be the manufacturer who gets this contract, because we will eventually order 10 million. And you don't want to do try and produce 10 million at once anyways. So give me the 10 million rate, and in you're in the door for 100,000 today."

The iPhone didn't sell well initially for a couple of reasons. Most individuals didn't think they needed smart phones. Most smart phone users didn't think the iPhone was a real smart phone. It took a while for people to realize the potential of the app store, and what the iPhone could do for them. The iPhone is also tied to one network.

The tablet could just be a plain wifi tablet with no cell phone support out of the box. You can always add a cellular modem, just like you do for your notebook today. If it isn't tied to a specific carrier, and they can launch it globally overnight (as opposed to fighting for different carrier deals in different countries) then they could easy trounce iPhone's early sales.

Apple has customers happily paying $2,900 for laptops. If they make a nice tablet for $999, I think people will eat it up.

He then states, "you want to be the manufacturer who gets this contract, because we will eventually order 10 million. And you don't want to do try and produce 10 million at once anyways. So give me the 10 million rate, and in you're in the door for 100,000 today."

It took a while for people to realize the potential of the app store, and what the iPhone could do for them

I actually think it was more of "What are you talking about? Web apps are fine! We aren't making an SDK for the iPhone" moment from Steve Jobs and then he eventually realized the need for an app store. People knew it needed an app store from the start, but it wasn't until the 2.x firmware that they actually got it added.

Actually, I refuse to believe Jobs is that short-sighted or stupid. That hoopla over web apps was Jobs telling you what you had while he had the team feverishly working on the SDK in the background.

He couldn't say nothing. And he couldn't say it was coming later, because if he did, no one would have touched the iPhone for the first year.

There was more to it than that. I think there was a debate between a native SDK and using a web-based SDK (like what Palm did with WebOS). Apple was clearly working on both tracks, but WebKit was just not ready fast enough. There was evidence of this.

One of the complaints about the web SDK approach was the lack of local storage for offline use. A SQL interface had been proposed for HTML5, but hadn't been implemented by anyone yet. Apple announced the iPhone native SDK [macrumors.com] on Oct 17. That weekend (on Oct 19th), quietly on the WebKit Blog, HTML5 client-side SQL storage was quietly checked in. [webkit.org] Coincidence? No way.

The other thing is for certain, the iPhone native SDK was not ready in time for iPhone 1.0. The jailbreakers had to deal with regular app breakage due to Apple changing APIs. Apple wasn't screwing with the jailbreakers, they were refining the SDK. That is much easier to do if you only have a dozen in-house applications to work on. Once it was declared final for iPhone 2.0, Apple had to support it fully. There have been few changes to the public API since, though there were some for iPhone 3.0.

Oddly enough, I think the people who wish the iPhone to be more open would have been happier if the webSDK approach had won out. It would have made it easy for other companies to support iPhone apps by including a WebKit-based browser.

This sounds like revisionist history to me. I don't think anyone outside Apple was even thinking about the concept of an "App Store." Sure, developers wanted native applications and an SDK - but they weren't thinking of an Apple-run store for applications.

Either way, it was only an issue with developers, and the users/consumers didn't really care either way because 3rd-party apps on their phone just wasn't on the radar.

Well, some people knew. I knew.
I was using a Nokia n90 at the time the iphone came out. Even it had an app store. It of course was a great idea, but the iphone wasn't first... Then started jailbreaking the phones and the AppTap store came out for the iphone... way before Apple did.

You really think that they hadn't had the SDK in the works right from the start, that they just whipped it up after reading some Slashdot comments or something? No way. They were just doing what Apple always does -- doing things in smaller steps and only announcing things once they've been polished.

I know I'm going to sound like a naysayer, so, hey, I may as well nay say.

Google's probably going for a tablet as well [theregister.co.uk], so 2010 will likely be the year of the tablet - in the form of iphones and iclones, with much larger screens, the next must-have at the coffee shops. But it's going to fall flat on its face. It's too close to netbooks, but not as useful as a netbook.

iSlates aren't meant to compete with netbooks, they are meant to compete with eBook readers (while in addition offering all the functionality of an iPhone or iTouch). Think color eBook reader/video viewer along with a google maps implementation and accelerometers so you can play games just by tilting it, and you see it has gaming functionality that netbooks don't and large screen capability that smartphones don't. (Much as I love my Android phone, it is harder than heck to read things on.)

iSlates aren't meant to compete with netbooks, they are meant to compete with eBook readers (while in addition offering all the functionality of an iPhone or iTouch).

Pardon my ignorance as I'm new to the Apple rumor mill, but it is my understanding that any iSlate or Apple-branded tablet device is just a rumor. If that is the case, then how can anyone know what this mysterious and unannounced device is supposed to compete with?

You ARE new around here, aren't you? This is the "Apple rumor mill", where we all pull "facts" out of our collective asses based on wild speculation and conjecture... welcome to the club, you'll catch on in due time!

I don't matter what it's for. The fact that Apple made it (or MAY make it in this case) means that thousands of fanboys all over the net are scrambling and grasping at straws to explain just why this is the best way to do things.

I swear if Apple reintroduced punch cards there would be people heralding it as the UI method of the future and assuring you that if you don't like them then you're just short sighted and stuck in the past.

I don't matter what it's for. The fact that Apple made it (or MAY make it in this case) means that thousands of fanboys all over the net are scrambling and grasping at straws to explain just why this is the best way to do things.

Except I don't think it's the fanboys this time, as much as the PC industry pundits and "analysts." It's kind of weird - because much of the coverage and sensationalism seems to be coming from typical PC-centric publications that don't historically cover Apple. I'm guessing that perhaps they got tired of all the naysaying, and decided to be a part of this one to get some hits.

On the other hand, most Apple "fanboys" I know are quite skeptical about this one. This rumor cycle is being driven by a different dy

Indeed, given the historical usage of Macs in DTP and design, it would explain the pro-Apple views that pervade the media.

That's an utterly absurd comment, because the layout people and designers aren't the ones who write the articles or edit the journals. Anyway, I'm talking about websites and publications which have been outright hostile to Macs.

I think it has more to do with insider trading, for example, see Jim Cramer talking about how he tried to manipulate Apple stock prices.

It's supposed to compete with the 100s of 7 and 10" netbook sized tablets that will be coming on the market here in the next 3-8 months by other manufacturers that have already been announced to some degree. Nobody will confirm exact specifics until apple announces theirs, since they want to be able to buy the B and C quality parts at a discount that don't pass the test to be included in the apple tablet. Once they have the parts, they buy time in the production schedule of factories set up on contract for

PDAs are a vanishing market now that equivalent functionality it available in a smartphone. I don't see why an iSlate couldn't provide all the same functionality of an eBook reader, with the exception that color touchscreen probably means shorter battery life -- but then, eBook readers suck for watching videos (as do cell phones).

Firstly, I'm surprised that such a logical fallacy gets modded up, but then this is an Apple story ("X prediction was wrong in the past, therefore Y prediction must be wrong too"?!) But what's wrong with that often-quoted statement? He doesn't say the Ipod will fail, he says it's lame. Since when does being popular mean it can't be lame? Oh okay - it's now fair game to ridicule every Apple fan who criticises Windows and Internet Explorer. Given how popular they are, they obviously can't be lame, right?

You have a remarkable talent for arguing with yourself. The arguments you attack are absurd, of course, but only because you're misinterpreting the intent of the original statement. The original comment on Slashdot is infamous because it illustrates how out of touch with mainstream thinking geeks can be. I'm sure your Sansa is fine, but the original iPod (not the shuffle) was a game-changing device, not because of its technical prowess (it was indeed 'lame' in technical terms), but because it integrated beautifully with a desktop, had a nice simpler interface, and fitted just enough music in a pocket sized package to be revolutionary and acceptable as a mainstream replacement for something like a walkman.

I think that statement a salutary reminder of how out of touch geeks can become, particularly in an echo-chamber like Slashdot.

I expect this tablet will be similar re the many competing tablets/ereaders/etc. out there at present. It wouldn't take much to completely change this area of computing, given the limited utility of something like a Kindle and the clunkyness of the current crop of Windows tablets (not the unreleased MS Courier, which looks good, but is sadly still a prototype). We'll have to wait and see what Apple comes up with before knowing if its an expensive flop or another revolutionary device though - the gap between the two can be very narrow.

Any gamer who's ever sat around a table playing games who can't imagine the use of a reasonably-sided, flat, touch-sensitive inexpensive networked computer with an easy-to-use SDK isn't imaginative enough. Slashdot, if anywhere, should be all over this. I would expect this product to be like the introduction of Magic: The Gathering to the gaming community.

Alternatively, they are large eBook readers that trade the better all-condition and long-term reading ease of electronic ink with for additional functionality and color display.

Not sure they'll succeed even so -- there's a whole of different applications in the mobile space, and getting the right combination of features to hit the sweet spots is going to be an area where there is a lot of trial and error in the next few years.

You can say that Apple's approval process for the iPhone is unnecessary and capricious and therefore evil.

You can say that, in the long run, locking down the iPhone will stagnate innovation and Apple will therefore never dominate the smartphone market.

But you can't say that "independent application developers have a difficult time getting anything published and widely available." There are over 100,000 apps available, and they've been downloaded 2 billion times. The model has been, so far, enormously su

The iSlate is sort of a big iPod, but not really. It performs a lot of notebook-like functions, but it's not really a notebook either.

And the author knows this how? How do we know it will be a "big iPod", it could be completely different for all we know because nobody has seen it who is allowed to talk about it. Regardless, of what it actually does, the idea that Apple will predict that it will sell 10 million tablets in the first year is hooey. If anything, I would guess they will do the opposite and order too few units in order to increase the demand for the product by creating scarcity. Just ask the Nintendo when the Wii came out or whoever made tickle me elmo how this works...

Manufacturers like to hype up, or pretend to have shortages but it is very bad to actually have one because you lose sales. It's worse for them to have a surplus, though, because it costs them money. That's why manufacturers tend to be conservative then they are doing their initial production runs. The goal is to get as close as possible to the actual demand, without exceeding it. This is especially true with microelectronics where waiting a year to move a product could render it obsolete and therefore w

Yea, and it backfired for Nintendo. They may be on top, but they could be standing taller.

The hype that sold a lot of Wii's was the motion feedback. I waited outside a now defunct Circuit City twice in the early mornings when the Wii first came out but was unable to secure a device. Now, how many years later, I stopped caring. I saw a few and wasnt overly impressed with the graphics or performance of the motion-sensing.

They ordered 10 million. This does not mean that they will take delivery. We might recall that Apple allegedly orders part to tie up the supply chain for other companies, and then only accepts what it actually needs to meet production [tgdaily.com]. This makes a lot of sense as they can guarantee a consistent and compatible product until the next rev. One big problem I have with other vendors is it can be hard to figure out what drivers are needed for which models, as even within a model they may use several differen

Or was interpreted differently. 1,000,000,000-as-billion is pretty much standard here now, at least in this limey's experience. Ordinarily I would lament such a happening, but the world is better served by a consistent definition of "billion".

Now if only you guys could sort your stupid date format out, we'd be set...

A billion is 10^9 in Britain, just the same as in the US. The frogs across the channel have a similar sounding word that means 10^12, and "Milliard" for 10^9. But as they have different words for everything else, why should they stop at numbers?

Essentially, yes, they do: "First of April, 2010. Twentythird of July, 2009." As do Australians and AFAIK all the English speaking nations apart from the US. The US really is out on its own when it comes to a lot of this stuff. (Anyone with any sense uses ISO format though because the numbers sort better in a list.)

So we're at the first step in the Apple Product Cycle [misterbg.org]? It's nice to see we're right on track.

As an aside, I think it makes lots of sense for Apple to produce a tablet product, but I can't imagine them actually producing 10,000,000 of these things for launch. First, it's a ridiculously high number, far exceeding the number of iPhones sold in a year and coming close to the number of all types of iPods combined.
Second, I doubt Apple would ever allow any of their new products to be overproduced. Artificial scarcity only adds to the perceived desirability of Apple products, driving the hype engine even more.

Number of iPhone 3G units sold in the first quarter alone: 6.89 million

So the second generation device outsold the first generation device in a single quarter, and now you think Apple is going all-out on a first generation device? Just to point out, the first-generation iPod solid far less than 500,000 units total. We're talking about first-generation products here, not the entire life cycle of the product. No manufactur

Apple is quickly converging it's products into single slabs of screen and processing power. I don't think the internet infrastructure will be different in 2020, but I do think you'll simply have a choice of screen sizes and the option to attach a laptop-style bottom case with extra horsepower or stick with the touchscreen top.

Maybe Apple will pull a coup this time around and offer a large tablet interface that's easily dockable. I know for many people the option to snag their interface and take it to a meeting down the hall or at the coffee shop would be pretty valuable. Stick a camera on the back as well as the front of it and you've really got something that could save time for a wide array of industries.

Apple will convince the public that they need it, a market will be created, and I just have to wait a few months to pick up the copycat product at half the cost.

Maybe Apple will pull a coup this time around and offer a large tablet interface that's easily dockable. I know for many people the option to snag their interface and take it to a meeting down the hall or at the coffee shop would be pretty valuable

The first thing that came to mind when I read this was interfaces like you see in Minority Report or Avatar where you can dock a smaller display(roughly the size of your average tablet) into your main display and actually drag information to the tablet display. You can then undock the tablet and continue working with whatever data you moved to the tablet display. I could see where something like this would have its uses.

Because the Apple's tablet won't be a fully fledged computer. It won't run Mac OS X. Not without some hacking, at least. And if a real keyboard and decent range of expansion ports are what's required, then that's what a laptop is for.

Yeah, but the current tablets don't seem to be selling that well. In order to do so, they'll need their own OS, just like Apple will do, at which point they aren't going to be fully fledged computers. Unless you want to dual-boot between tablet mode and desktop mode, but that will make it too much of an oddball to be popular. Plus you'll also need the hardware to support a desktop OS, which will make it bigger if you want a decent experience.

I've thought for a while that it could be pretty neat to have something like an iPhone/PDA with a stripped down portable interface, but when linked to a dock, it becomes a fully capable desktop machine.

I thought earlier in a different article we were told that the iPhone was the Apple tablet/netbook. Now they are doing a tablet as well? At some point they'll just end up picking off their own product sales and they will become their own worst enemy, as even the most ardent MacFanBois(TM) only want so many Apple products...

I think as soon as it's too big to fit comfortably in your pocket, it's no longer competing with the iPhone or iPod. If the tablet cannibalizes any of Apple's sales, it will probably be the Macbook Air. The Macbook Air is sort of the closest Apple has right now to a netbook/ultraportable.

But many of the rumors suggest that this device will be intended to compete more with the Kindle or Nook than with netbooks. But with Apple, there's often LOTS of random speculation, so you don't really know until somet

At some point they'll just end up picking off their own product sales and they will become their own worst enemy,

I think that's Apple's old way of thinking. The new Apple realizes that to move forward, it needs to compete with its own products, rather than fearing cannibalism. If the possibility for something better exists, and you don't make it for fear of competing with your own products, then somebody else will, and take that business away from you.

This attitude is clear with iPods, where Apple produced new models at a rapid pace, including variations such as the mini and nano which competed with the more expensive full-size iPod. And finally, it happened with the iPhone, which in many ways makes the iPod obsolete. Apple realized it couldn't rely on the iPod being relevant forever, so came up with the next big thing, and finding extra revenue streams such as the App Store.

We also see it to a lesser degree with the Macs. In earlier times, Apple would deliberately cripple its low-end computers so as not to compete with the more expensive models. However, recently, we've seen Macbooks that are nearly as good as the more expensive Macbook Pros, just without the fancy aluminum case. Sure, there are some spec differences, but it's not like the Macbooks are being hobbled out of fear of cannibalism like they were in the past.

The author of the article has a hard time believing that Apple ordered 10 million tablets this year. While his logic is sound regarding the numbers, the author isn't quoting Apple. The author's source for this rumor is an ex-Google employee. And this employee is not saying Apple "ordered" 10 million only that Apple "plans to produce" 10 million. There's a huge difference between the two. Like any company building a new product, Apple has ordered X amount while letting their suppliers know that they may want up to Y amount. If the product sells well, Apple will increase their order. If it doesn't Apple will not. Also the Y amount may be an unreachable goal. Sometimes when negotiating contracts, some suppliers are not interested unless you are ordering a large amount. Everyone knows that goal isn't likely but it makes everything look good.

Let's just hope the iSlate is a lot easier to clean then our current keyboard are... uh, cause I tend to spill things on my keyboard... uh, like soda! Yeah, that's the ticket, soda! It has nothing to do with using the computer to view porn, honest!

If Apple gets the tablet right and it sees high demand for the product, I don't see 10 million being an unreachable goal. The iPhone has a significant impediment to sales that a regular computer doesn't have, you have to sign up for a 2 year phone contract that costs over $2000.

ONE INFINITE LOOP, Here We Go Again, Sunday (NNGadget) — Apple is reportedly close to launching its long-rumored ____. It could be Apple’s latest billion-dollar jackpot.

Analyst speculation says the ___ will be launched in September and be in the shops by Christmas. A new mention of the ___ crops up on Twitter around every eight minutes.

The ___ is rumoured to be any size and scale between the iPod Shuffle and the Macintosh IIfx. Some have described the ___ as a “___-killer.” Analyst speculation suggests the ___ will use a fantastic new interface. “It will be a whole new paradigm,” said Apple blogger Leander Kahney.

Expectations flared when technology research analysts noted that Taiwanese suppliers had received orders from an unknown buyer for a particular obscure component to be filled by the end of the year. “The only possible conclusion is that Apple will launch a ___ by early next year,” said Kahney. “They’ve been working on the ___ for the past six years. People expect it to be the ultimate Apple surprise. This thing will knock people’s socks off.”

Apple has refused to comment on the ___ speculation. But Tim Cook, its chief operating officer, recently hinted that the company was working on something “very innovative.” Steve Jobs is thought to have been personally involved in the development of the ___ over the past two years.

Daniel Eran Dilger noted on roughlydrafted.com that the ___ would need to be fueled on pain, angst, the destruction of the ecology, the torture of kittens and the tears of widows and orphans, but put together a devastatingly convincing and very lengthy explanation as to why Apple’s actions were the only humanly acceptable option for the consumer, the technology industry and the future of humanity, and that Jobs’ Nobel Peace Prize was ridiculously overdue. And that all problems were clearly Microsoft’s fault.

As we're seeing with the Kindle, and the iPhone, many people can find uses for additional computers in our lives. I can definitely see a use for a tablet device sitting on my coffee table, waiting to be used by anyone walking in as both a media selector (iTunes to an AirPort Express/Apple TV), or as a general device to answer "Who is in that movie?", "What's on tomorrow", "You're talking BS" questions. I already use my iPhone for that, this would just be a general device, whereas the iPhone is "personal".

Add to that the ability to use it as a general book reader, and you've got a winner.

Tablets aren't laptop replacements, they are secondary displays for the living room, secondary devices that enhance your ability to use the compute power you _already_ have in your house.

Simple, a cellular network card slot so that you can choose your carrier. That would be the best possible solution as I don't think you could hardwire a card in to work with any carrier (well, the technologies available but the carriers probably wouldn't play ball).

Simple, a cellular network card slot so that you can choose your carrier.

In Apple's home country, the carriers with decent coverage (Verizon and Sprint) use the CDMA2000 stack instead of GSM. Like GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000 allows carriers to put the account info on a removable card [wikipedia.org]. But unlike GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000 doesn't require a removable CSIM, so the carriers just tie the account to the internal memory of the handset.

Simple, a cellular network card slot so that you can choose your carrier.

In Apple's home country, the carriers with decent coverage (Verizon and Sprint) use the CDMA2000 stack instead of GSM. Like GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000 allows carriers to put the account info on a removable card [wikipedia.org]. But unlike GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000 doesn't require a removable CSIM, so the carriers just tie the account to the internal memory of the handset.

Try reading more slowly. The GP said "cellular network card slot". What that means is that you could buy a cellular data network card from your carrier of choice be it GSM or CDMA and plug it into the device. Carriers currently sell cards like that for laptops. Another alternative would be to simply offer a USB port that could be recessed to take in the USB cellular modem dongle. Both CDMA and and GSM carriers sell such USB dongles with a data plan.

A tablet is definitely NOT a phone and thus it has a much greater utility (or should have). The problem with Apple's philosophy WILL be that they will treat this like it is an iPhone. The tablet has to be not just a netbook without a keyboard, but it must also be an e-reader, a browser, a program launcher, a gaming device, and the ability to communicate via webcams, microphones, and it must also have GPS capabilities. It must also have a removable battery as well as the standard USB, wireless & wired

Apple distinguishes between appliances and computers. The only things on your list that the iPhone doesn't have is a removable battery and the ssd slot. The former is a feature that most consumers just don't care about at all. To the point that Apple has been successfully selling the Macbook Air and the new Macbook without a removable battery.

The only question is whether this new tablet will be a computer or an appliance.

With the strong following that Apple has for its product lines and the underserved tablet market for personal computing i dont see this as unreasonable. provided they got the bugs out before investing in the hardware. a mass order will help Apple secure a better cost and that should bring about a better retail for the consumer.

As someone who has used and supported hundreds of tablets and convertibles, let me assure you the "tablet market" is right where it should be. Tablets require the user to give up a large amount of functionality in the form of a physical keyboard and mouse, and the return for this is minimal and extremely niche. While I do not doubt that Apple could do well selling these on brand alone, tablets are simply not a practical replacement for the standard notebook or desktop.

Indeed. Even in the niche market I'm in for them (digital art), if it doesn't have a Wacom digitizer sitting between me and the screen (i.e. it's essentially a cintiq with onboard computer) I have no use for it. I'm not alone in that particular requirement, either.

Oh yes, I've looked around for a decent affordable tablet which is basically "a Cintiq with onboard computer" but most tablets I've found have either had an extremely bad monitor, horrible digitizer or they somehow charge Vaio/MBP prices for a very moderately powered tablet with a Graphire-era quality digitizer and an "ok" monitor.

I'm still hoping for Apple or someone else to come up with a good stylus-compatible tablet with a good monitor that doesn't have "early adopter pricing" throughout its lifecycle..

As someone who has used and supported hundreds of tablets and convertibles...tablets are simply not a practical replacement for the standard notebook or desktop.

Good thing they won't be building a 'tablet or convertible' then, and won't be trying to shoe-horn a desktop OS into a tablet form factor like other tablets mentioned here which run Windows. Those are attempts at replacing the laptop, which I doubt we'll get from Apple. But this isn't about revolutionary hardware (which we will not see), or devices which run Windows (which are frankly irrelevant). The Kindle is probably a more apt comparison, though it's also very different, or the as yet unreleased MS Courier concept.

What this sort of bullet point comparison to currently shipping products completely ignores is that if the software is sufficiently well thought out, the device transcends its list of features. I imagine the hardware will be as simple as possible, ARM based slate format with a touchscreen, long battery life, and perhaps one button to turn it on. But the hardware doesn't really matter; it's not going to be the first, or the fastest, or the smallest, or the lightest, or the biggest, tablet, though I'm sure Jobs will come up with some superlatives to try and sell it.

The magic sauce that Apple can provide here is in the software; the integration with a massive store selling every kind of media you can imagine, straight to the device, the integration with your desktop computer and phone, calendar and address book, the integration with your existing media library in iTunes, an existing catalogue of apps and games, and finally the pleasure of interacting with a UI which has actually been designed from the ground up for a touch screen interface, instead of grudgingly adapted for it. Good design matters, as Apple products demonstrate. All that stuff is available in pieces from other people, but it's quite hard to put together in a nice package.

The iPhone OS is actually pretty revolutionary as operating systems go - it removes a lot of chrome we've become used to over the years - menus, window widgets, overlapping windows (save alerts), and replaces it with something simpler, and I expect the next evolution of it will take things a little further along this path.

However the greatest potential this device has to shake things up is not in the hardware or software, but in promoting the transition from paper to pixels which began with the www and has been accelerating ever since. If they provide the tools to package and sell snippets of html based content in the style of iTunes LP packages, they could provide the micro-purchase web that content producers have been waiting for, and many consumers who prefer their content not to be infested with ads are willing to pay for. I hope it supports epub, pdf, plain html and other common formats too, just as the iPod supported MP3, and if iPhone software is ported, it will.

I would guess that the majority of tablets and convertibles you've supported ran Windows, which is poorly designed for a tablet. Your doubts sound a lot like people in the runup to the iPhone, who said that a phone without physical buttons -- even better a physical keyboard -- is a non-starter and would be useless. As always, Apple will change the game by what it does in the software combined with an elegant physical design.

what would be nice is a tablet that can be placed in a dock. the dock could have connections to a keyboard and mouse, maybe a port for an external monitor. i would buy this if the price is reasonable. a handy big iphone for browsing the web, playing games, taking notes and watching movies on the go; a regular computer at home. someone should make this . . .

I have a modern HP tablet (tx2500 series) that a friend convinced me to buy (got it for a great price). After almost a year of owning it, I still fail to recognize where the tablet functionality is really beneficial. I can type much faster than it can accurately recognize my handwriting, and I haven't found any applications that are truly useful in tablet mode. Sure I have some gimmicky graphics programs that work great and they're fun to show off, but overall it just doesn't do anything special. I think I'd be better off owning both a 15" laptop and a 10" netbook instead of a tablet that's right about in the middle.

I can type much faster than it can accurately recognize my handwriting

Yeah, the thing is that even though computers are probably getting better at recognizing handwriting, most of us are getting much worse at handwriting too. For me at least, trying to handwrite something neatly enough that another person could read it is a relatively slow and painful process when compared to typing. I suspect that a lot of the fascination with handwriting recognition and speech recognition originated in a time where people were much less comfortable typing than we are now.

Ive had an HP TC1100 for a couple years now and loved it. I find a good tablet to easily be a replacement for a netbook.....
I agree that tablets are not a practical replacement for a standard notebook or desktop, but they make a good replacement for a netbook.

So, Apple is going to make a product that competes with netbooks that sells in the $1000 range? And some people think they can sell somewhere around 10 million of them in the first year? I want some of what those people are smoking.